A new-build BR Standard Class 3 is planned.

A couple have announced they are suspending operations for the time being. We will await to see what "the time being" means.

No we will all be the poorer for schemes which don't work. One project has already had the courage to admit that a significant part of the work carried out was sub standard. Top marks for frankness but it still means a lot of money has been used up for nothing. Outsiders have no knowledge of the level of competence of these groups.

PH

 

I would like to point out that the sub-standard work was done by an engineering company when the group concerned was being run by completely different management. Also any work being done by said group now is scrutinised by their chosen VAB.
Can I just ask, what is your involvement in railway preservation?

 

I am aware this came to light after the group "changed hands". This does not affect the basic point I made.

I suppose you are implying my involvement is merely that of an onlooker. Sorry to disappoint! I am not going to claim any especial accomplishments but it involves nearly fifty years of involvement in admin., manual work and operation. This is exclusively in the narrow gauge field.

One thing it has taught me is to realise is that there is an inbuilt propensity in railway preservation never to finish projects before starting something else. There are exceptions of course.

PH

 

Didn't Tornado start out in life in much the same way?

 

Bowes Railway and Northampton and Lamport.

PH

 

Bowes railway was badly affected by constant vandalism.

 

Both the Bowes Railway, and the Northampton and Lamport have been on the receiving end of much unwanted vandalism, nothing at all to do with the number of new-build locos being planned / built, or indeed the number of preserved / restored railways in operation.

 

Not at all in disagreement here.
At the changing hands of said project the supporters had started to ask awkward questions about the way the project was going - the transparency with which the A1SLT went about its work had shown at least one way to get it done and get it done right. What the new management have had to deal with was a project organised and executed like a 'hobby',whilst its likely that most of the parts obtained will be perfectly fit for purpose given the residual over -engineering in a steam locomotive, but that wasnt really appropriate for a multi million pound, precision engineerd safety critical piece of kit.
Imagining for a moment think that your ' dream loco' is not a meccano set but is a passenger carrying aircraft with all the responsibilty that entails is a good reality check , which due to the people involved ' Tornado' was able to pass.

 

Some interesting thoughts. With regard to meccano, have you ever looked between the frames of a Bulleid Merchant Navy, Gresley A4 and V2 or, indeed, Scotsman before the messing about started. You will find that they resemble a Meccano kit, albeit with fitted bolts used and, of course, no washers.

 

Had a nosy between the frames of Braunton and looked scotsmans over whilst at Bury and there was a bit more cast and weld than your average meccano kit, but i see where you're coming from.
Perhaps a special edition Extra Thick meccano with green faces to machine and bolts you have to 'drive home' would do wonders to de stress the modern child !

 

Have you seen the photos of the canal bridge and picnic table in the Bolton area. Classic heavyweight Meccano!

 

I wish the new 77021 Group every success. However I hope they have not gone public too soon. It is all too easy to set up a website and request support, when in fact you dont have your plans sufficiently advanced to demonstrate progress and viability. If there is little progress with any project of this nature then people tend to lose interest and drift away.
Clearly by starting to construct a drawings library and joining BSLOG is a very good start, but there will soon also be a need to have a financial plan, an engineering plan, and an effective means of dealing with publicity and disseminating information to investors and the wider enthusiast public. There also needs to be a business case for constructing 77021. The website comments that the rationale at present is "as none of the original 20 that were built survivied into preservation". Sorry chaps but that isn't the right answer! Please read on the 82045 website the article by John Besley as to why he settled on the construction of another member of the 82xxx class. Please understand I am not trying in any way to do you down, but "completing the set of Standards" is Not the answer!
Tom in #62 on this thread makes a good case for having a "base" on a heritage railway, both from having access to engineering facilities and a membership of that heritage line who may become involved in a number of ways.
82045MS in #29 comments that the team building 82045 are a group of retired engineers, draughtsmen and machinists, to which I would add " patternmaker" as well, and this group are able to use the engineering facilities at Bridgnorth Works when such machinery is not otherwise engaged on SVR loco work, and I suspect that only by doing as much of the construction work as possible yourselves on an unpaid--materials only cost--basis is the difference betewen a project being viable or not viable from a cost point of view. The more you have to contract out to commercial organisations the more expensive it becomes.
I suppose also right from the start of such a project you have to be mindful (and record carefully) the engineering and legislative standards required and compliance with same, ie materials specifications, liasing with insurers and VAB, if you actually want to steam your loco on completion.

I must admit to being a little concerned by Tony Graham's comment in his post #41..." But as we are all full-time workers on shifts and work on the mainline railway, things for now will get done when we have a chance to do them". Tony, respectfully this project is quite likely to take over the lives of yourself and your two collegues, and when you decide on a base for this new build, then you will perhaps need to recruit people to your cause with the necessary skills AND time to devote to the project. I am sure the good people "up front" on the 82045 project will be able to point you in the right direction with informal advice on a number of these issues, and relate their practical experiences.

Again, the best of luck.

46118

 

46118, some very pertinent observations in your post and, although I've decided to support 77021, and can therefore be considered biased, I personally take your post as helpful, constructive observation, and certainly not criticism. Regarding the comment on the case for building this locomotive as, "completing the set of Standards" as Not the answer to the exam question, I would counter that by saying that it certainly isn't the whole answer; however, it is enough to sway me and, if I can be swayed by it, then perhaps other "loose walleted "people can be too. However, I'm much more swayed by the fact that this new 77xxx will be of the right type (if there is such a thing!) for certain heritage lines and it shares so much with its tank-loco cousin that it seems sensible to build one. You are absolutely right about this project sucking up time as well as money and the 77021 membership will need to grow. I'll do my best to help.

 

So, is the Patriot not viable then?

 

Thanks, Kinghambranch, your comments are appreciated and understood. I am certainly not wanting to be critical, rather just adding some realism to the thinking. Not in fairness implying that the 77021 group are lacking "realism" in any way, more to underline the difficult and expensive task they are taking on, for which they will need lots of help, financial, physical, and administrative!

regards

46118

 

std tank: The overall cost of the Patriot will reflect the fact that the build has been contracted out to Llangollen.The 82045 people are fortunate in being able to do much of the basic engineering work themselves, but clearly not wheels and boiler.

Also, the Patriot fill a gap in LMS locomotive history, we have nothing like it in existance.

You cannot say that for the 77xxx, the recently completed restoration of a 76xxx gives preservation a very similar machine, same wheels, wheelbase, but a slightly larger boiler.

However, different aspirations; the 82xxx is for Heritage line use. I assume the Patriot is being built to mainline standards for NR use, but will also be a popular heritage line visitor. Equally 77021 will be an ideal heritage line loco.

46118

 

You have not answered my question.
77021 will fill a gap in BR locomotive history. To compare it to Class 4 2-6-0 is nonsense. By the way, a Class 4 2-6-0 does not have the same driving wheels or axles as the Class 3s.

 

std tank: I meant that there are similar looking locomotives in preservation. There is nothing "similar" around in relation to an unrebuilt Patriot,

On the question of coupled wheel diameter, strangely Cox in "BR Standard Steam Locomotives" doesn't show wheel diameters on his drawings, but the table in G Freeman Allen's "The Riddles Standard Types in Traffic" shows the 82xxx, the 76xxx, and the 77xxx as all having 5ft 3inch driving wheels. Maybe that is incorrect.